S'abonner

Single versus multiple fractions of repeat radiation for painful bone metastases: a randomised, controlled, non-inferiority trial - 28/01/14

Doi : 10.1016/S1470-2045(13)70556-4 
Edward Chow, Dr ProfMBBS a, , Yvette M van der Linden, MD b, c, Daniel Roos, ProfMD d, William F Hartsell, MD e, Peter Hoskin, ProfMD f, Jackson S Y Wu, MD g, Michael D Brundage, ProfMD h, Abdenour Nabid, MD j, Caroline J A Tissing-Tan, MD k, Bing Oei, MD l, Scott Babington, MBChB m, William F Demas, ProfMD n, Carolyn F Wilson, MSc i, Ralph M Meyer, ProfMD i, o, Bingshu E Chen, PhD i, Rebecca K S Wong, ProfMBChB p
a Sunnybrook Odette Cancer Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada 
b Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, Netherlands 
c Radiotherapy Institute Friesland, Leeuwarden, Netherlands 
d Royal Adelaide Hospital, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA, Australia 
e Central DuPage Hospital Cancer Center, Warrenville, IL, USA 
f Mount Vernon Hospital Cancer Centre, Northwood, Middlesex, UK 
g Tom Baker Cancer Centre, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada 
h Division of Cancer Care and Epidemiology, Queen’s Cancer Research Institute, Queen’s University, Kingston, ON, Canada 
i NCIC Clinical Trials Group, Queen’s Cancer Research Institute, Queen’s University, Kingston, ON, Canada 
j Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, QC, Canada 
k Institute for Radiation Oncology Arnhem, Arnhem, Netherlands 
l Instituut Verbeeten, Tilburg, Netherlands 
m Christchurch Hospital, Christchurch, New Zealand 
n Akron City Hospital, Northeast Ohio Medical University, Akron, OH, USA 
o Department of Oncology, McMaster University, Juravinski Hospital and Cancer Centre, Hamilton, ON, Canada 
p Princess Margaret Hospital, Radiation Medicine Program, Ontario Cancer Institute, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada 

* Correspondence to: Dr Edward Chow, Department of Radiation Oncology, Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, ON M4N 3M5, Canada

Summary

Background

Although repeat radiation treatment has been shown to palliate pain in patients with bone metastases from multiple primary origin sites, data for the best possible dose fractionation schedules are lacking. We aimed to assess two dose fractionation schedules in patients with painful bone metastases needing repeat radiation therapy.

Methods

We did a multicentre, non-blinded, randomised, controlled trial in nine countries worldwide. We enrolled patients 18 years or older who had radiologically confirmed, painful (ie, pain measured as ≥2 points using the Brief Pain Inventory) bone metastases, had received previous radiation therapy, and were taking a stable dose and schedule of pain-relieving drugs (if prescribed). Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either 8 Gy in a single fraction or 20 Gy in multiple fractions by a central computer-generated allocation sequence using dynamic minimisation to conceal assignment, stratified by previous radiation fraction schedule, response to initial radiation, and treatment centre. Patients, caregivers, and investigators were not masked to treatment allocation. The primary endpoint was overall pain response at 2 months, which was defined as the sum of complete and partial pain responses to treatment, assessed using both Brief Pain Inventory scores and changes in analgesic consumption. Analysis was done by intention to treat. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00080912.

Findings

Between Jan 7, 2004, and May 24, 2012, we randomly assigned 425 patients to each treatment group. 19 (4%) patients in the 8 Gy group and 12 (3%) in the 20 Gy group were found to be ineligible after randomisation, and 140 (33%) and 132 (31%) patients, respectively, were not assessable at 2 months and were counted as missing data in the intention-to-treat analysis. In the intention-to-treat population, 118 (28%) patients allocated to 8 Gy treatment and 135 (32%) allocated to 20 Gy treatment had an overall pain response to treatment (p=0·21; response difference of 4·00% [upper limit of the 95% CI 9·2, less than the prespecified non-inferiority margin of 10%]). In the per-protocol population, 116 (45%) of 258 patients and 134 (51%) of 263 patients, respectively, had an overall pain response to treatment (p=0·17; response difference 6·00% [upper limit of the 95% CI 13·2, greater than the prespecified non-inferiority margin of 10%]). The most frequently reported acute radiation-related toxicities at 14 days were lack of appetite (201 [56%] of 358 assessable patients who received 8 Gy vs 229 [66%] of 349 assessable patients who received 20 Gy; p=0·011) and diarrhoea (81 [23%] of 357 vs 108 [31%] of 349; p=0·018). Pathological fractures occurred in 30 (7%) of 425 patients assigned to 8 Gy and 20 (5%) of 425 assigned to 20 Gy (odds ratio [OR] 1·54, 95% CI 0·85–2·75; p=0·15), and spinal cord or cauda equina compressions were reported in seven (2%) of 425 versus two (<1%) of 425, respectively (OR 3·54, 95% CI 0·73–17·15; p=0·094).

Interpretation

In patients with painful bone metastases requiring repeat radiation therapy, treatment with 8 Gy in a single fraction seems to be non-inferior and less toxic than 20 Gy in multiple fractions; however, as findings were not robust in a per-protocol analysis, trade-offs between efficacy and toxicity might exist.

Funding

Canadian Cancer Society Research Institute, US National Cancer Institute, Cancer Council Australia, Royal Adelaide Hospital, Dutch Cancer Society, and Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris.

Le texte complet de cet article est disponible en PDF.

Plan


© 2014  Elsevier Ltd. Tous droits réservés.
Ajouter à ma bibliothèque Retirer de ma bibliothèque Imprimer
Export

    Export citations

  • Fichier

  • Contenu

Vol 15 - N° 2

P. 164-171 - février 2014 Retour au numéro
Article précédent Article précédent
  • Chemotherapy for isolated locoregional recurrence of breast cancer (CALOR): a randomised trial
  • Stefan Aebi, Shari Gelber, Stewart J Anderson, István Láng, André Robidoux, Miguel Martín, Johan W R Nortier, Alexander H G Paterson, Mothaffar F Rimawi, José Manuel Baena Cañada, Beat Thürlimann, Elizabeth Murray, Eleftherios P Mamounas, Charles E Geyer, Karen N Price, Alan S Coates, Richard D Gelber, Priya Rastogi, Norman Wolmark, Irene L Wapnir, on behalf of the CALOR investigators †
| Article suivant Article suivant
  • Accuracy of human papillomavirus testing on self-collected versus clinician-collected samples: a meta-analysis
  • Marc Arbyn, Freija Verdoodt, Peter J F Snijders, Viola M J Verhoef, Eero Suonio, Lena Dillner, Silvia Minozzi, Cristina Bellisario, Rita Banzi, Fang-Hui Zhao, Peter Hillemanns, Ahti Anttila

Bienvenue sur EM-consulte, la référence des professionnels de santé.
L’accès au texte intégral de cet article nécessite un abonnement.

Déjà abonné à cette revue ?

Mon compte


Plateformes Elsevier Masson

Déclaration CNIL

EM-CONSULTE.COM est déclaré à la CNIL, déclaration n° 1286925.

En application de la loi nº78-17 du 6 janvier 1978 relative à l'informatique, aux fichiers et aux libertés, vous disposez des droits d'opposition (art.26 de la loi), d'accès (art.34 à 38 de la loi), et de rectification (art.36 de la loi) des données vous concernant. Ainsi, vous pouvez exiger que soient rectifiées, complétées, clarifiées, mises à jour ou effacées les informations vous concernant qui sont inexactes, incomplètes, équivoques, périmées ou dont la collecte ou l'utilisation ou la conservation est interdite.
Les informations personnelles concernant les visiteurs de notre site, y compris leur identité, sont confidentielles.
Le responsable du site s'engage sur l'honneur à respecter les conditions légales de confidentialité applicables en France et à ne pas divulguer ces informations à des tiers.


Tout le contenu de ce site: Copyright © 2025 Elsevier, ses concédants de licence et ses contributeurs. Tout les droits sont réservés, y compris ceux relatifs à l'exploration de textes et de données, a la formation en IA et aux technologies similaires. Pour tout contenu en libre accès, les conditions de licence Creative Commons s'appliquent.